I have been a photographer for over 40 years and I felt as if I should chime in on this thread.

It is not illegal to take pictures or possess pictures of people under the age of 18. There are all sorts of examples of girls and boys under 18 naked in pictures and in movies. Pretty Baby for example shows a fully nude 12 year old Brooke Shields. (good movie by the way - even shows a young Susan Sarandan's tits) The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY displays Gary Gross pictures of Brooke Shields at age 11 in full make up and naked. Naturist magazines show nude families in nudist camps. Sally Mann took pictures of naked children, David Hamilton does naked pictures of teen girls. Their work is in museums. I could go on and on, there are all sorts of examples of nude pictures of people under the age of 18 available to the public. It is not illegal but people have a misconception that it is.

Even the article linked to contains this misinformation:

It was a crime, however, to photograph her the in the nude, because the federal definition of child pornography covers images of anyone under the age of 18.

That is absolutely not true.

It is against the law to take pictures of people under the age of 18 in sexual situations or explicitly for the sexual gratification of others or displaying their genital areas as the focus point of the photograph. Different states define this differently. You could even be charged with child porn if the person under 18 is fully clothed (and some people have been). It's all in the content of the picture. For example, suppose I took a picture of a naked girl swimming in the pool or posing beside a tree; it's perfectly legal and perfectly fine. But suppose I took a picture of the same girl in her underwear laying on a bed with her legs spread making a kissing face and pointing at her crotch? Very illegal.

Now I'm not telling anyone to grab their camera and go out to take nude pictures of 18 year olds, it is liable to get you detained and questioned and maybe arrested but not convicted. Any lawyer could get you off by citing your right to free speech. But your pictures will be scrutinized for even the smallest of illegality. Annie Leibovitz got in hot water for taking a picture of a minor with her legs spread and there was a six pack of beer on the shelf in the background. If not for her reputation and good lawyers she might have gone to jail.

I know a photographer who runs a site called True Teen Babes and they are girls between 13 and 17 wearing lingerie. He's based in Florida and gets away with it. To me, he's really pushing the line. I would accept just girls on nature walks or swimming or even artistic nude posing but this guy puts them in lingerie and they pose on the couch or bed. That's really pushing it.

Personally, I don't take nude pictures of under 18 year olds but I do support others who do so simply for the sake of art. I can't imagine living in a society where a naked body is considered pornography. I visit Brazil sometimes and everyone on the beach is naked there. All they wear are g strings. Young, old, male, or female. Everyone is just naked. It's shocking to come back to the states and see how stuck up everyone is and we're supposed to be free.

I just wanted to get the point across that taking nude pictures is never against the law. Taking sexual pictures of under 18 year olds is. That's probably what happened in this case. She was rubbing herself or something sexual like that.

@jameshardy, thanks for your input. But I don't get something. If it's not illegal to take photos of minors, then why did Dan Cilley get arrested and labeled a "sex predator" just for filming a minor and flirting with her a little? That seems unjustified and overkill and the judgment of a sick society that is unwarranted.